Talk:Krogan Rebellions
Start date? Ok: So here's what we know. The Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183 states (on page 3) that in the year 700 CE, "Krogan Rebellions begin." Direct quote, explicitly stating that they begin. Now, the new CDN story states that a mass grave "dating back to the Krogan Rebellions of 749 CE" was found. It doesn't state that the Rebellions began in 749. It's just as likely that the sentence refers to the year the grave itself was dug. Further evidence is the fact that the corpses in the grave are turian. And we know, thanks to (among other things) the in-game Codex, that the turians weren't initially involved in the war. They joined it later, saving the Council from defeat. As such, mass graves dating back to the beginning of the war would be unlikely to contain turians, who entered the war part-way through, would they not? SpartHawg948 05:48, September 18, 2010 (UTC) :If we accept historical precedent from our real universe, then Commdor was correct when he updated the date. However, this means that more than one date will now need to be updated, as well. I have compiled a list of conflicts which have a similar name: ** War of 1812 ** Rebellions of 1837 ** Indian Rebellion of 1857 ** Cod War of 1893 Google - Cod War of 1893 ** Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 ** Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 ** Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ** Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 :There may be others I may have missed. I hope this helps the discussion. 13:07, September 18, 2010 (UTC) :As we are discussing changes to the timeline, there is another change we might consider. The article states the Krogan Rebellions began after three centuries of expansion by the krogan. This is contradicted by the game. See below. :::Shepard: Tell me more about the Krogan Rebellions. :::Avina: In recognition of their efforts during the Rachni Wars, the krogan were granted several new colony worlds by the Council. Over the next 400 years, the krogan species began to expand. Blessed with an extremely high birth rate, their numbers began to swell. Faced with a critical over-population crisis, the krogan started a violent colonization of nearby worlds inhabited by other Council species. The Krogan Rebellions had begun. For a full century, the Council and its member species fought to bring the krogan under control. With the aid of the newly discovered turian empire they were ultimately successful. :Garvug, founded in 356, may be one of the colony worlds Avina was alluding to. If the timeline is updated, than the end date of the KR would be in 849 and the turians would be granted a seat on the Council in 950 or thereabouts. 13:40, September 18, 2010 (UTC) Real world analogies don't really tie in here. Especially in light of the fact that, unlike those wars, the Krogan Rebellions are never referred to as the "Krogan Rebellions of ___". Well, nowhere except one CDN report. So no, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Nor does it do anything to override canon (like the canon statement that the Rebellions began in 700 CE, or the canon that turians were not involved in the initial phases of the war). SpartHawg948 19:18, September 18, 2010 (UTC) :I agree with Spart. Completely spaced out about when the turians came in and a few other vital details. My mistake. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC) Well I dont think that these turians participated in the K.R. The CDN says that the corpses date back to the K.R. not that they died in K.R. It could be some other war. SoulRipper 20:33, September 18, 2010 (UTC) :If it were some other war, why would they specifically mention that it was a mass grave of turian soldiers dating back to the Krogan Rebellions? What other wars were going then? We know that these are turian soldiers in a mass grave that dates back to the Krogan Rebellions, which the Turian Hierarchy did take part in. We also know that they did die in the line of duty (the bit about them making the "supreme sacrifice"). So... which makes more sense: That these turian soldiers, found in a grave dating back to the Krogan Rebellions, were killed during the Krogan Rebellions, which the turians fought in, or that they were killed in a completely unrelated and currently unknown war that happened to be occurring simultaneously? A war that, even while ongoing, was minor enough to allow the turians to swiftly make rapid advances into krogan territory? SpartHawg948 20:40, September 18, 2010 (UTC) From having watched Doctor Who and Star Trek, I have learn that continuity in a fictional universe is constantly subject to revisions ('ret-con') and is always in flux. I can give an example from Mass Effect. * Galactic Codex (http://masseffect.bioware.com/me1/galacticcodex/krogan_history.html) - The salarians move a large segment of the krogan population of Tuchanka to a new homeworld. Both homeworlds are devasted by the genophage released by the Turian Empire. In this account, the Krogan Rebellions lasted three centuries. * Galactic Codex 2183: The krogan are given a new homeworld by a grateful Council after the Rachni Wars end. The Krogan Rebellion lasts one hundred years. * Games: The krogan aren't moved to a new homeworld by the salarians, or given a new homeworld by the Council. The krogan have one homeworld, Tuchanka, and the krogan living on the planet are devastated by the genophage released by the Turian Hierarchy. (Note the change in names.) The Krogan Rebellions lasts a full century. And, according to the Galactic Codex 2183, the turians are discovered in the same year that the Krogan Rebellions begin. For myself, I adjust to the changes and alter my personal timeline accordingly. As for the historical examples, the Indian Rebellion of 1857 is rarely spoken, and most people know this conflict as the Indian Mutiny. 23:34, September 18, 2010 (UTC) :Trust me, I know all about retcons, and this one does not seem like a retcon. So... let's look at your examples. :*You cite an obsolete entry from way back when, back when the official site was literally brand new. This, of course, was contradicted by every in-game source. It is literally the equivalent of holding up an early draft of the Star Wars screenplay to challenge canon on-screen info. :*Next, the GCE: 2183. The krogan receive a new homeworld. This is supported by in-game info, which states that the krogan used the good-will towards them as leverage for territorial gains. Several in-game sources also mention the salarians relocating krogan to a less hostile world as part of the "up-lifting" process. The Krogan Rebellions last one hundred years. Again, not contradicted in-game, so can't say I see the issue here. :*Finally, you state that the krogan aren't moved to a new homeworld by the salarians, or given one by the Council. Cite evidence, please. Not just "Games". Again, it is clearly stated in-game that the krogan made territorial gains post-Rachni War but pre-Krogan Rebellions, and that the salarians did relocate krogan to another world. These worlds were likely forcibly stripped from the krogan, along with the Council worlds the krogan had seized, during the conflict. We know for a fact that the krogan had spread to many worlds prior to the start of the Rebellions. Sure, by the time of ME2, they are again centered on Tuchanka, but there is nothing stating (or even suggesting) that this was the case during and immediately prior to the Rebellions. And again, pointing out that the turian government is called the Turian Empire in very early info and the Turian Hierarchy in-game demonstrates nothing. The turian government is also referred to as the Turian Empire in other sources (for an example, see page 22 of Mass Effect: Revelation), suggesting that it is another (somewhat) commonly used name for the turian government. :Finally, yes, according to the GC:E E2183, the turians were discovered the same year that the Rebellions began. And? It doesn't state that they entered the war that same year. As such, nothing about that fact contradicts the in-game fact that the turians entered the war sometime after it had begun, and long enough into the war for the Council to have fallen upon hard times. As for what I do, before making adjustments, I look at what canon says, and what it does not say, and I judge accordingly, and base my "personal timeline" on fact and on canon. And once again, a canon source says the Rebellions began in 700. Another source mentions the "Krogan Rebellions of 749 CE". It doesn't state that they began in 749. Simple as that. Canon statement beats interpretation of an ambiguous statement every time. SpartHawg948 06:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC) ::Sorry to just jump in here, but since I don't have the GC:E E2183, which is where most of this information comes from apparently, I still support that the Rebellions started in 700 CE. However I should also bring up that Avina states in-game that the turian goverment is called the "Turain Empire" in the terminal in the shadow of the Krogan Monument. It seems the name is interchangeable. Lancer1289 16:29, September 19, 2010 (UTC) SpartHawg948, I feel we have a failure in communication. It's rather sad, really, but there it is. - Nanny McPhee. 22:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC) :I don't really see any failure here. Well, at least not a failure to communicate. After all, literally all I've been doing is providing canonical responses to the points you've raised. I'm sorry, but all the points you raised in your last major response were easily countered by numerous instances of canon information. There simply is not support for the theory that the Krogan Rebellions started in 749, while there is canon support for its having begun in 700. There was one genuine inconsistency you pointed out (the very early info stating that the Rebellions lasted three centuries, which is contradicted by later material in a classic example of retcon), but the other supposed inconsistencies simply aren't inconsistent. That's all I've been trying to get across here - canon takes precedence, and canon supports a start date of 700, not 749. I can't help it if, once your points are countered by two other users, you wish to cite failure in communication. Again, I just don't see any failure here. SpartHawg948 22:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC) SpartHawg948, I feel that most of us live in the real world, and that our impressions of that world influence our understanding of the fictional worlds. Initially, I attempted to apply real world conventions to a fictional universe by citing examples of real world events which follow a similar convention. In your response, you respond that this didn't apply for, unlike those events, the Krogan Rebellions aren't commonly known as Krogan Rebellions of 749. (A rather spurious response, I feel, as the Indian Rebellion of 1857 is commonly known as the Indian Mutiny and not that other name, and yet we don't argue that this event occurred at an earlier date or a later date. The word of is used as a function word to indicate the position in time of an action or occurrence. Dictionary) As I read your response, I hunted furtively for how you define "of 749 CE". This is where the failure in communication occurs for I couldn't understand your perspective as it seemed contrary to what I had learned from the real world. I feel that explaining to me that the Galactic Codex states a different date and, therefore, this source is more canonical than CDN unsettling. I couldn't accept this argument for I learned from the Talmud that when there is a dispute between two sources, then the newest source is considered the more authoritative and supersedes the earlier source. I see this as a dispute for we have two separate dates, and I see two different sources separated by time. I didn't explain this point well in the second post, unfortunately, for I wrote a response that is too clever by half. In your response that followed, I read your dissection of my second post, then you tell me that the phrase "of 749 CE" doesn't state that the Krogan Rebellions began in this year. This flies against convention and usage where "of" is used by historians to define the first year of a conflict, as in the War of 1812 or the Indian Rebellion of 1857. In your last response, you ask me to provide examples. May I ask that you do the same where you can find a real world example analogous to what you arguing here? For example, event x of year y didn't occur in year y but happen in year z. 00:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC) :I don't recall ever asking in my last post for examples. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I offer to you the Revolutions of 1989. Why is this noteworthy? Simple. Event x (the Revolutions) of year y (of 1989) is a blanket term applying to revolutions that took place in 1989, 1991, 1992, and to a lesser (and somewhat contentious) extent, in 2008. Or, as you'd say, years y and z. Note how the inaccurate term of 1989 is still applied to revolutions that did not begin or end in 1989. Also, please note that I never said that "the Krogan Rebellions aren't commonly known as Krogan Rebellions of 749", which I agree, would be spurious. I said that the Krogan Rebellions are never referred to anywhere in the ME universe as the Krogan Rebellions of 749, not up until this one CDN story. Misrepresentations of what I actually said will get you nowhere. Once again, we have a canon source that states explicitly that the Rebellions began in 700 CE. Then we have a CDN report that refers to the Krogan Rebellions of 749, without stating that they began then, a story that also makes mention of turian soldiers, when we know for a canon fact that the turians weren't even involved in the early stages of the war. It is equally plausible that the turians refer to it as the Krogan Rebellions of 749, to distinguish between the different phases of the war, pre- and post-turian intervention. This would be (to use one of your cherished real-world analogies) akin to the use of the term Great Patriotic War by the Russians to separate the Second World War in Europe into two portions, one extending from 1 September 1939 to 21 June 1941 (before the USSR actively participated) and the other from 22 June 1941 to 9 May 1945. I can't for the life of me see why this is an issue. You know perfectly well that canon statements trump your own ambiguous interpretations of events and text. But then, I guess that's just what you do, isn't it, Throwback? SpartHawg948 01:21, September 20, 2010 (UTC) ::I cannot also see why this is an issue. However I have another example of how things are broken up like the example already given. The Hundred Years' War between England and France is broken up into several main stages and is reflected by Wikipedia. The three main stages are also reflected in Wikipedia, and that is usually how I see it broken up in most history books. We have a canon source saying that it started in 700 CE and then we have your interpretations, which amount to speculation. I seriously doubt that the Krogan Rebellions was one hundred years of sustained unending conflict. There had to be pauses, probably lasting for years in some cases. I also doubt that the Rachni Wars was also three centuries of sustained conflict as well. Fighting for a hundred years, let alone three hundred, with no rest periods, even if only for a few months, seems unreasonable, both in science fiction and in real like. I can provide numerous real world examples, and probably a few examples in scifi as well, of that. Lancer1289 01:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC) :::Maybe clarifying the core issue is helpful. For, of course one could find examples of oddly named conflicts. But at bottom, the mystery editor wasn't speculating, but rather asked Spart what "of 749" means if it does not refer to the start date of some conflict (citing numerous examples to show that it is customary, if not universal, to say "conflict of year" meaning the conflict began in that year). Spart, having common sense and being well studied in military history, knows very well that customarily (even if not always), in our language, such is the significance of the phrase-type "conflict of some year". But (and this is the core) Spart also provided an answer to the editor's fundamental question, which, to repeat, was "what do you mean by 'of 749', then?" And his answer was, in effect, "we don't know for certain, but given the fact that the turians are the subject of the CDN, it's likely that it refers to the entrance of the turians into the krogan rebellions". In other words, Spart said, in effect, it means the same sort of thing we would expect it to mean, but from the turian point of view. I find this argument, in this case, highly probable (I will add, e.g., that we know from ME2 news briefs that the turians refer to conflicts by turian names: "First Contact War" vs. "the Relay ### Incident"). --AnotherRho 03:34, September 20, 2010 (UTC) SpartHawg948, you made my argument for me which I don't think is your intent. The example you give is the Revolutions of 1989. This is a series of revolutions that began in 1989 and continues for the next twenty years. Using this as an example, the Krogan Rebellions can be described as a hundred-year series of rebellions that began in 749. As for the contention expressed here that the turians are from the year 749, I would vehemently disagree. The exact sentence is this, Investigators have now confirmed over 430 skeletal remains of turian soldiers dating back to the Krogan Rebellions of 749 CE. When I compare this sentence to a real news article: Graves discovered dating back to the French Revolution, I note these similarities - * The writers identify the events using the format: conflict of year - the French Revolution of 1789, the Krogan Rebellions of 749. * The writers view each event as a period of time that spanned a decade (the French Revolution) or a century (Krogan Rebellion). * The writers describe the graves as dating back to their respective time periods. In both examples, the graves date to a time that is after the event began. "Krogan Rebellions of 749 CE" is an issue for a writer at Bioware made a decision to describe the event this way and now this phrase is part of the canon. (This phrasing is used in the real world as well, as seen above. In both cases, the writers could have identified the event without adding the year.) Contrary to what you stated, You know perfectly well that canon statements trump your own ambiguous interpretations of events and text., I am not creating a new set of rules. As you can see from the news article I provided, I am working well within the parameters set by our society in interpreting and evaluating a text. I am employing one of the tools that our society provides to me which is language. Language has its own set of rules, and, unfortunately, the rules of our language are very clear on this matter. One of the rules, as stated so concisely by AnthorRho, is that "conflict of year" means Ed. the conflict began in that year. I provided examples to support that rule, which you dismissed as unimportant. I asked for an exception to this rule, and instead you give me an example which supports this rule. The failure of our communication stems from the fact that I feel I am working with one set of rules, and you are working with another set. 15:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC) :And how exactly was I making your argument for you? The Revolutions of 1989 didn't all begin in 1989. Or did you not even bother to check the facts? Several of them did, but others, completely unrelated outside of the context of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, didn't begin until later. Even revolutions that began in 1991 and 2008 are lumped in with the "Revolutions of 1989", even though they did not begin in 1989. Your attempts to twist anything you can to your advantage are laughable, to be quite honest. If you'll note, I provided another completely plausible explanation that fits all the facts (including the one you keep glossing over of late, that the turians, whose soldiers are in the graves, were not involved in the early phases of the war), yet you conveniently ignored that in your reply. Can't say I'm surprised. These are pretty much textbook Throwback. When can I expect to see you replace all your posts with "garbled words"? SpartHawg948 18:55, September 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes can you please explain how Spart made your argument for you? Because I don't see it. Spart shows that an even started in one year, then a few others were grouped with it that DIDN'T start in that year. It isn't uncommon to break up long conflicts into separate, smaller groupings, like the example Spart gave above with the Great Patriotic War, or my 100 Years War example. We have canon information that says 700 CE, and canon trumps your interpretations. Lancer1289 20:52, September 20, 2010 (UTC) :::At any rate, there are counterexamples to the custom of speaking of conflicts by their start year as "conflict of year", whether we like it or not. -- Having another look at the CDN, one should consider these points. "Turian authorities have begun work with local colonists etc." Turians are the authoritative group investigating the site. "Chief archaeologist and historian Salur Darikun...": I could be mistaken, but his name sounds turian; and besides, he would seem to belong to those "Turian authorities". Just more evidence that the news brief is speaking in turian terms (i.e., lending evidence to the possibility that the "Krogan Rebellions of 749" refers to the same Rebellions of 700, but by the name the turians would employ, since they entered the war later). Note that no one is claiming that these corpses became corpses in 749. The suggested solution was that the turians died during the krogan conflict, which for them may have began in 749. :::- Which reminds me: let's all be just here. E.g., I spoke of the custom ("conflict of year") as a habitual usage of historians, not a rule or law. Also, on the one hand, 24.4.etc. isn't wrong in claiming that "conflict of year" often refers to the start of a conflict. Also, no one denies that (I assume); for example, Spart's solution assumes that "of 749" refers to the start date--but for the turians (in contradistinction to the then-Council). Also, on the other hand, Spart is the one who began this discussion by acknowledging the apparent discrepancy (and I assume he would agree to this assertion). On the, um, third or fourth hand, 24.4.etc. seems to make not a bad case with that external news article. - Buuuuuut some things deserve reconsideration. First, regarding bullet point 2: the CDN doesn't speak of the rebellions as lasting a century (or any length of time at all). And second, bullet point 3 at least seems to grant that 749 is after the Krogans began to rebel. Which agrees with the proposed solution to the problem (the main point): that the "K. Rebellions of 749" is spoken in accord with the turian naming of the rebellions (because the newly-discovered turians entered the conflict after it had began), but not the Council's naming (which doesn't even employ a date in the name). --AnotherRho 05:11, September 21, 2010 (UTC) :I am a frelling idiot. I chose to go into a head-to-head with SpartHawg948. (Shakes head) Moving on, I suggest a solution - why don't we write Bioware and ask them what they mean by adding 749 to the Krogan Rebellions? 04:10, September 22, 2010 (UTC) ::Not a bad plan, assuming you know whom to write. Who writes the CDN anyway? --AnotherRho 04:29, September 22, 2010 (UTC) Well... what can I say? I do tend to be tenacious, especially when going up against someone who refuses to address the points I'm making. Seriously though, Throwback, you do what you want to do. I have to say though, I've given you two chances to simply fess up and say "Yep, it's me", and you couldn't even bring yourself to do that, could you? I won't lie and say that doing so would have earned you a commutation from me or anything, but it may have secured you a little respect in my book. I mean, you have to know that, no matter if you confirmed or denied your identity, the outcome would be largely the same. Either you are Throwback (as the record suggests), in which case, you're a user who has been permanently banned for mass vandalism and truly unconscionable comments to others, in which case any attempts to edit (including using this IP) are sock puppetry, or you aren't Throwback, and are an unregistered user who is guilty of attempting to impersonate a registered user via edits made to their comments. Either way, it's not looking good... SpartHawg948 05:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC) Date of Genophage Salarians typically only live till like... 40 right? this means that Mass Effect 2 has to take place within 40 years of the Genophage... When was the Genophage? do we know a date? and if so, why isn't listed on the page? PanchromaticRhythm 15:41, February 2, 2012 (UTC) :We don't have a specific date for when the genophage was deployed, but it had to have occurred between 700 and 800 CE (when the Krogan Rebellions took place). But what I assume you're talking about is an STG project that modified the genophage when it was found that the krogan were naturally developing a resistance to it. That project happened within 40 years or so of ME2 (again, no exact date is known), within Mordin's lifetime. -- Commdor (Talk) 15:48, February 2, 2012 (UTC) Nakmor Krall? Is Nakmor Krall a veteran of the Krogan Rebellions? I remember from the Nakmor ambassador he "faced down platoons of turians and won". :Unless he specifically mentions he fought in the Rebellions, there's no way to tell. Factions of krogan and turians clashed long after the Rebellions ended, so the battle he relates could have happened at any time between then and the present. -- Commdor (Talk) 07:23, June 29, 2012 (UTC)